Re: Illustrating Guidelines

>"As a screen reader user I would just as soon the guidelines not be 
>"cluttered" with images"

The "clutter" is "refusable" by the action of simply not loading images. If 
this is too tough for some users to do because of browser tedium, there 
could be choices at the top, as there is, for example, to linearize the 
tables in the EO stuff. Then there is no doubt that you're getting all you 
want without the clutter of images. And the updates can't ghettoize the 
"text only" page because it's a reduction of the overall document with 
known eliminations. Same with animations. Same with sounds.

The issue of a separate "translated" version for "lower reading levels" is 
another matter altogether, but the use of multimedia is conspicuous by its 
absence to the overwhelmingly preponderant majority of Web users.

Are illustrated guidelines a subset of the "main" guidelines? Or is it the 
other way around?

In the "real world" illustrations and even animations are the norm and our 
major problem is absence/difficulty of user-control. We devise an ad filter 
and the advertisers devise a filter-defeater, etc.

So, in summary: the guidelines must advise about 
adequate/proper/significant/appropriate use of multimedia. Having done so 
they must exemplify how that is best done by doing it - not just by saying 
it. There really is no other choice. The thread "illustrating guidelines" 
should be about "how" - the "whether" and "why" are no longer at issue.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Sunday, 13 May 2001 13:11:50 UTC